Are you an orthodox Catholic?

Judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett attacked for her religion

This afternoon, during a confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the nominee for her Roman Catholic faith. Barrett is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has written about the role of religion in public life and delivered academic lectures to Christian legal groups. Drawing on some of these materials, Feinstein launched a thinly veiled attack on Barrett’s Catholic faith, asserting that her religious views will prevent her from judging fairly.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

Other Democratic senators took issue with Barrett over her faith as well. Senate minority whip Dick Durbin criticized Barrett’s use of the term “orthodox Catholic,” insisting that it unfairly maligns Catholics who do not hold certain positions about abortion or the death penalty. (Durbin himself is a Catholic who abandoned his previous pro-life position.) 

“Are you an orthodox Catholic?” he later asked Barrett point blank.

Amy Coney Barrett (image from University of Notre Dame)

And Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono snarked, “I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges.” These criticisms echo a report from the left-wing Alliance for Justice, which alleged that as a judge Barrett “would put her personal beliefs ahead of the law.”

This and other claims contained in the report are completely unsubstantiated, much like the charge levied by Feinstein. In fact, Barrett has explicitly written that “judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” She has also insisted that judges ought to recuse themselves in situations when their faith conflicts with their judicial responsibility.

Full story at National Review. 



To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.


  1. They’re coming after us!

  2. Vincent Kelch says:

    So, the “soft” persecution begins. Questioning like that has no place in judicial nominee hearings. Is this a “religious test” forbidden in the Constitution? More hypocrisy from the secularists. Deacon Vince

    • There’s not only a religious test, there’s a gay test, an affirmative action test, a social justice test, a living-and-breathing Constitution test, a poor vs. rich test, a weak vs. strong test, an oppressor vs. oppressed test, a white vs. black test, a feminist test, oh — and let’s not forget — the all-important, unrestricted, unregulated, federally funded abortion test.

  3. If Ms. Barrett was a Muslim, her confirmation would be assured without mention of her religion.

  4. St. Christopher says:

    Satan is far more powerful than anyone can imagine. These Members of Congress (and virtually the entire Democratic Party) are doing his bidding. More and more, the notion of religious belief is held up as a disqualifier, or as an opportunity for the adversely affected to disavow the “lasting impact” of his Faith.

    The nominee simply flubbed her answer. Anyone true Catholic should say that, of course, his faith serves as a filter for the decisions made in his secular job. Put another way, would you vote for a politician that gave the “Cuomo-Kennedy” line of believing in the Church but not be willing to be guided by its teachings when the issue was abortion? How can you vote for someone who believes that abortion is murder but…

  5. St. Christopher says:

    (Part Deux) ” . . . then refuse to do all that he could to stop it? Enabling murder is committing murder. Do not vote for these people.

    Of course, the Members who ask these questions are dolts regarding their knowledge of the Constitution. Among other things, what about the effect of Article VI, Section 3, dear Members, you know, the “no religion test” clause, among several other provisions. Evil words from evil people. And where are the Republican Members on this. Craven cowards.

  6. The Watchman says:

    It is abundantly clear and obvious that Feinstein is an anti Catholic bigot and all those that think like her are also anti Catholic bigots. What America needs more than ever are judges that have a strong moral backbone to make rulings that are in keeping with the laws of Almighty God. In God We Trust! Even Roe of Roe versus Wade was against abortion even though that was not publicized by the media or the pro abortion supporters. With all due respect to the Feinsteins of this world we need today more than ever to have people of faith enter public life. The time is fast approaching for God’s eternal chastisement and judgement on America and the rest of the world. America turn to a loving and merciful God before it is too late. Pray!…

  7. Bill Donohue was on with Raymond Arroyo on The World Over tonight and he said they tried this same thing with Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearing years ago…….and he also said, why don’t they ever ask those questions of anyone else who is up for confirmation in the Judiciary other than Catholics? And Dick Durbin had (would you believe 19 years of ‘Catholic’ education……give me a break.

    • Exactly, have they ever asked a Greek Orthodox if their archbishop’s advice would affect their decision, a Muslim if their Imam or a grand mufti would affect their decision, a Jew their rabbi or the President of Israel. would affect their decision or a Buddhist if the Dali Lama would affect their decision. We all know the answers to that. Those people DO affect the decisions of their followers.

      • I used the word “their” instead of his/her to make the post shorter. It is not correct English but simplifies things. Sometimes I just use “his”, but this involved a woman.

  8. The wicked witch is back in the news. Yes another one of those wolves in sheeps clothing. Thank you DF for showing your true ugly colors. California needs to fire her, she is awful for California and for our nation.

  9. Anonymous 2 says:

    Arricle VI, US Constitution, specifically states “No religious test shall be prescribed as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    I wouldnt expect either Dick Durbin nor Dianne Feinstein to realize this fact, since they are US Senators, ergo we shouldnt expect too much of that uselessly preening Hall of Versailles over there.

  10. Professor Barrett has writings outlining her view of the responsibilities of Jurists to recuse themselves in cases of conflict. However, the article points to no case where Professor Barrett actually had to recuse herself due to conflict. One could well argue the Senators are seeking solid assurance Professor Barrett’s future action, if confirmed, will follow her writings.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      So, you think a religious test for public office is fine. Even though it is prohibited (US Const., Art. VI). Or at least you will accommodate one.

      So you would stick the knife in a fellow Catholic for the secular atheist state?

  11. There may not be any lions or burning stakes but, nevertheless, there is persecution. Anti-Catholic bigotry is the only acceptable discrimination.

  12. Steve Seitz says:

    It’s probably difficult to fairly judge Senator Feinstein’s words without seeing the full text, but she has inferred 2 disparaging things.

    The first is that she doesn’t practice her faith very well because she’s inferred that she’d force synagogue attendance if she were a practicing Jew. The second is that she precludes all serious, observant Jews from holding public office: certainly all judgeships.

    I wonder if she understands the full ramification of her words?

  13. Ma’amhedrin.

  14. The National Review story is, as our President would say, “Fake News!” I watched the hearing and Professor Barrett was NOT attacked for her religious beliefs. On the basis of several articles she wrote about religion and legal practice, she was questioned about the impact her religious beliefs would have on her service as a judge. Professor Barrett clearly answered that she would follow the Constitution and the law.

    • Fred, the fact that the nominee was asked the question is the issue, not its context or the response. The Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, which means you can’t ask about it. Period. So, asking the nominee about her religion amounts to a serious violation of the Constitution. The Senators should have known better, and maybe even censured.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Fake narrative.

      The issue of her being an “orthodox Catholic” was literally stated by Dick Durbin as an issue [“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”] with her assuming the judicial office.

      It was at that point that Feinstein took up the point—entirely uncoordinated, of course—–that “the dogma [being an ‘orthodox Catholic’] lives loudly within you, and that is what is of concern.” That is strictly prohibited under Art. VI, US Constitution. That is imposing a religious test. Please dont be obscurantist: their goal was clear. Exclude Catholics who are serious about their Faith.

      We don’t want another Antonin Scalia.

  15. Doesn’t this religious litmus test violate article 6. Feinstein et al who are violating the constitution should be brought up on charges. Maybe relieved of the positions. How can you be a sitting senator or rep for that matter not know the constitution or know it and blatantly violate it. Hey ho
    These people need to go!

  16. Basically what Dianne Feinstein is asking her to do is to deny her faith for the Kingdoms of the World. Don’t do it Amy Coney Barrett. Don’t trade your inheritance (heaven) for a bowl of pottage, or anything else. Satan tried it with the Lord Jesus Christ. Tell him NO.

  17. Michael McDermott says:

    Lets not forget that She has another strike against Her – She Clerked for Justice Scalia, which sends leftist law thugs in to major hissy fits
    I was harassed in class over my defending a Case where Scalia wrote for the Majority
    I filed a complaint and the leftist professor assigned to it made Threats of Extreme Physical Violence (he was a martial artiste) against me
    I then complained to the Dean (Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker – now head of the CA Bar) who refused to take any action, and in fact validated the Threats as appropriate for someone who actually supported a then Sitting Justice Scalia
    ‘Rabid’ barely conveys their hatred for the Man, who specialized in bursting their pretentious balloons

  18. Michael McDermott says:

    ‘Chilling!’ Notre Dame President Rebukes Catholic-Bashing Feinstein
    “It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge,” Notre Dame President John Jenkins wrote in a public letter to the California lawmaker

    “I am one in whose heart ‘dogma lives loudly’, as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom have given their lives in service to this nation,” Jenkins wrote

    “I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom “dogma lives loudly”—which is a condition we call faith,” he wrote. “For the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the law should…

  19. Michael McDermott says:

    ‘Chilling!’ Notre Dame President Rebukes Catholic-Bashing Feinstein

    “I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom “dogma lives loudly”—which is a condition we call faith,” he wrote. “For the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the law should command respect, not evoke concern.

    “Progressives and secularists are waging a brutal assault on people of faith — and we must stand together — and renounce anti-Christian bigots and bigotry — especially when those bigots walk the halls of Congress.
    The Politically Incorrect Jesus: Living Boldly in a Culture of Unbelief

  20. Inquisitor Maximus says:

    One is not an “orthodox Catholic” if he or she embraces the heresy of “religious liberty.”

    • anonymous 2 says:

      In their confirmation hearings, did anyone ever ask Justices Stephen Breyer, or Elena Kagan, or Ruth Bader Ginzburg, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Jew?”

      The room, and the media, would have erupted loudly with protest. As it should have.

      But it is always lawful to hunt Catholics who profess their Faith. Don’t worry, Sotomayor, we know your Catholic “faith” doesn’t have a thing to do with your acceptably secular atheist rulings.

    • On Point Grand Inquisitor…

    • We are not to force others to convert to the Catholic Church by the sword, though. That has never been Church teaching. Only baptized Catholics are under the jurisdiction of the Church. We can convert by persuasion and making moral laws according to Church teaching such as one man, one woman marriage, which is fair to both parties and supports children and society. We do have the right to self defense, nevertheless. The Crusades were wars of self defense.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.